Tories' child-care plan falls flat, poll says

[Renegade]

It is irresponsible of society* to make the cost of children prohibitive. I'm 48 next month. I can remember when a man making an average salary could afford to raise his family on one income. Today in Toronto the Average personal income (200) is just over $34,000. That means the cost of an average home is about 10 years salary. In 1966 the multiplier would have been between 2 and 3 times.

*By society I mean all of us.

It is not society which makes the cost of children prohibitive, it is the choices parent make. Yes, the cost of owning a home has gone up relative to income, but is that not to be expected as our cities get denser in population and land becomes more valuable?

Parents today have higher demands on their standards of living and on the demands for childcare then in 1966. It would be common then to leave kids with relatives or in-home childcare providers in the 60s. Today parents "need" 2 cars, big house, yearly vacation, all the toys, in addition to regulated childcare.

Family income has more than doubled (measured in constant dollars) since the 1960s. The average family size is decreased from 4 to 3.1 since the 60s, lowering the per family need for childcare. Yes it is true there has been an increase in the number of dual income households, but given the huge increase in family income, the argument that "society" has make childcare unaffordable does not have much justification

Bottom line is good childcare cost money. Parents should be factor that cost in in deciding to have kids. If they aren't willing to make tradeoffs and sacrifices to pay for the childcare, they shouldn't expect that the taxpayer will.

[M.Dancer]

It is not society which makes the cost of children prohibitive, it is the choices parent make

You mean parents are removed from society? When did that happen? I didn't get the memo....

Yes, the cost of owning a home has gone up relative to income, but is that not to be expected as our cities get denser in population and land becomes more valuable?

Ummm....appreciation and the rise of income should be balanced....other things have happened. New homes in less dense areas are still 8 to 9 times the average salary, in part by the demand for larger and larger homes.....in the 60's a good size home was 1,100 sq ft...today 2,000 is the small side of norm...yet even the 1,100 sq ft homes that remain are still priced upwards to 300,000 plus in toronto.....

It would be common then to leave kids with relatives or in-home childcare providers in the 60s

No...in the sixties the norm was the stay at home mom.

Family income has more than doubled (measured in constant dollars) since the 1960s. The average family size is decreased from 4 to 3.1 since the 60s, lowering the per family need for childcare. Yes it is true there has been an increase in the number of dual income households, but given the huge increase in family income, the argument that "society" has make childcare unaffordable does not have much justification

Family income has doubled...but that is going form single income to two income, and in real dollars disposable income has dropped since the 60's....so there is no huge increase in spending power, quite the opposite....therefore the argument that

It is irresponsible of society* to make the cost of children prohibitive

......stands

[Melanie_]

Bottom line is good childcare cost money. Parents should be factor that cost in in deciding to have kids. If they aren't willing to make tradeoffs and sacrifices to pay for the childcare, they shouldn't expect that the taxpayer will.

It isn't a question of whether or not parents will pay for child care. It is a question of whether or not it is available, and with what standard of care. The taxpayer isn't being asked to foot the bill for the daily care of children - although I recognize that the government of Quebec certainly subsidizes more than any other province. The central argument is really about whether the government should have a hand in establishing a licensed and regulated system, or if parents should be fending for themselves.

[Renegade]

You mean parents are removed from society? When did that happen? I didn't get the memo....

I didn't say parents were removed from society did I? Parents are a segment of society, and it is their choices which they should balance. The rest of society has nothing to do with it. If you want to be a smartass instead of responding to the argument, I'll go with the flow.

Ummm....appreciation and the rise of income should be balanced....other things have happened. New homes in less dense areas are still 8 to 9 times the average salary, in part by the demand for larger and larger homes.....in the 60's a good size home was 1,100 sq ft...today 2,000 is the small side of norm...yet even the 1,100 sq ft homes that remain are still priced upwards to 300,000 plus in toronto.....

Why look only at house prices? It is not the only factor which makes up affordability, afterall other factors such as mortgage rates play a huge part in determining whether a house was affordable. You point out that the demand is for larger and larger homes. Who if not parents are making those demands for larger homes? If the average home that a parent requred was 1100 sq feet, then no doubt the average cost would be much less.

If you actually want to make this argument you should look at the overall cost of living and compare it to income. Pointing soley at house prices is not sufficient to make the argument. I can just as easily point to lots of things which have gone down in price since the 60s. Does the price of any one thing prove life is more or less affordable?

No...in the sixties the norm was the stay at home mom.

I was referring to those who needed childcare. If they had a stay at home mom, they wouldn't need it would they?

Family income has doubled...but that is going form single income to two income, and in real dollars disposable income has dropped since the 60's....so there is no huge increase in spending power, quite the opposite....

First, the reason you need to look at family income instead of individual income is that it is families which need childcare not individuals, so family income is the relevant number to look at.

Second, do you have any evidence that disposable income has dropped. All the statistics I've seen show that disposable income has grown. link

It is irresponsible of society* to make the cost of children prohibitive

To back up your position that somehow taxpayers should subsidize parents by making childcare more affordable, you claim it is because life is less affordable for parents since the 1960s. You have not shown that to be the case at all.

Even if we assume it were true, how does it make it society's responsibility to subsidize childcare? I could just as easily say it is irresponsible for society to make cars cost probhitive, so they shoudl subsidize the cost of my new car.

[Renegade]

Bottom line is good childcare cost money. Parents should be factor that cost in in deciding to have kids. If they aren't willing to make tradeoffs and sacrifices to pay for the childcare, they shouldn't expect that the taxpayer will.

It isn't a question of whether or not parents will pay for child care. It is a question of whether or not it is available, and with what standard of care. The taxpayer isn't being asked to foot the bill for the daily care of children - although I recognize that the government of Quebec certainly subsidizes more than any other province. The central argument is really about whether the government should have a hand in establishing a licensed and regulated system, or if parents should be fending for themselves.

Melanie, I'm ok with a position that the government should set standards, much in the same way as government sets standards for other areas.

The point I was responding, to that Dancer was making, was that it goes beyond setting standards, but to somehow subsidize the cost. This I disagree with.

As to whether childcare is available, I'm strugglign with this, because, while I hear people complain about "lack of childcare spaces" I have not found any evidience that this was true. The complaint is really a euphisim for "I can't find any top quality child care at a cost I'm willing to pay". Both personal experience and those of others have shown, if you are willing to pay the cost, you can get the quality spaces you need.

[M.Dancer]

To back up your position that somehow taxpayers should subsidize parents by making childcare more affordable, you claim it is because life is less affordable for parents since the 1960s. You have not shown that to be the case at all.

I have never said that the Gov't should subsidize parents. That is what is being done now and I thinkk it's a waste. What the gov't should be doing is creating new spaces. I'm not ebven sure it should be a Federal programme...perhaps provincial but I think it should be closer to home, municiple but with dollars coming from above. Municiple becaue as the article says, need is perceived differntly across Canada, less in rural areas, more in Metropolitain.

Disposable income....

The stats you provided were for a ten year period, I'm speaking of a 40 year period. I don't have the Cnadian stats at hand, I will attempt to find them.

Here are some others.

Disposable personal income to personal income 1960-88.1 1980-86.2 1997-85.4

http://www.comw.org/poc/9904.html

[M.Dancer]

As to whether childcare is available, I'm strugglign with this, because, while I hear people complain about "lack of childcare spaces" I have not found any evidience that this was true. The complaint is really a euphisim for "I can't find any top quality child care at a cost I'm willing to pay". Both personal experience and those of others have shown, if you are willing to pay the cost, you can get the quality spaces you need.

Here's a top quality Daycare provider.....

Please note that the new 2-Year waitlist fee of $35 comes into effect on August 1, 2006

http://www.mothercraft.ca/dispatcher.asp?p...184&ter=201

And here is municipally subsidized

§ ' Do our families have access to subsidized childcare? *

Ward 22 (North Toronto) has an equity share of about 1% of Toronto's childcare subsidies. We receive less than this amount. About 200 children receive subsidized care while there is a wait list of another 200+. In order to meet demand, childcare spaces would have to be more than doubled. Wait lists for care are as follows:

Infant: Of all Toronto wards, North Toronto has the third longest wait list time of 8 months. The city average is 7.1 months.

Toddler: Ward 22 has a 12-month wait list. The city average is 11.3 months.

Preschool: Ward 22 meets the city average of 14.7 months for preschool subsidized care.

School Age:With a wait of almost 22 months, Ward 22 exceeds the city average wait of 17.6 months by more than 4 months.

http://www.pointinc.org/index.php?module=article&view=13

[Renegade]

Please note that the new 2-Year waitlist fee of $35 comes into effect on August 1, 2006

The fact that Mothercraft has a waitlist, does not prove that spaces are not available if you are willing to pay. In fact, subsidies are available for Mothercraft, which would explain why there woudl be an abundance of demand.

Some private schools have waitlists, some don't. Does the fact that some do, prove that we need more private schools?

Call up this location (416-345-1543): Kids & Company. They have available spots, no waitlist. Sorry, subsidies are not available.

And here is municipally subsidized

§ ' Do our families have access to subsidized childcare? *

Ward 22 (North Toronto) has an equity share of about 1% of Toronto's childcare subsidies. We receive less than this amount. About 200 children receive subsidized care while there is a wait list of another 200+. In order to meet demand, childcare spaces would have to be more than doubled. Wait lists for care are as follows:

Infant: Of all Toronto wards, North Toronto has the third longest wait list time of 8 months. The city average is 7.1 months.

Toddler: Ward 22 has a 12-month wait list. The city average is 11.3 months.

Preschool: Ward 22 meets the city average of 14.7 months for preschool subsidized care.

School Age:With a wait of almost 22 months, Ward 22 exceeds the city average wait of 17.6 months by more than 4 months.

http://www.pointinc.org/index.php?module=article&view=13

I never disputed that a free or subsidized center would not have spaces available. Everyone wants something for free or below market cost so it is no wonder such a location would have a waitlist.

Are you surprised that the government subsidized childcare centers in Quebec have a long waitlist?

[M.Dancer]

If mothercraft is offering subsidies, it's news to me. When we looked in, the rate was about 1200 for toddlers about 7 years ago

[M.Dancer]

eeerrrggg....the features here still irk me.

You may have seen that MC accepts municiple subsidies....all licensed daycares do. A subsidized daycare recieves direct fundingand their operating costs are underwritten.

http://www.gracechurchonthehill.ca/childCareCentre.html

This is where my daughter went 7 years ago. It is in Forest Hill. It is consoidered one of the finest daycares in TO...a sort of pre scholol bishop strachan.....and if you qualify, you can get a subsidy.

To get a sub, you must earn less than 30K HHI, and have less than $1000 in capital assets.........

[Renegade]

I have never said that the Gov't should subsidize parents.

If not government, who did you mean saying "society" had a responsibilty to not make children not cost-probibitive. And how exactly could "society" do so, without some sort of cost subsidy?

That is what is being done now and I thinkk it's a waste.

At least we agree on something.

What the gov't should be doing is creating new spaces. I'm not ebven sure it should be a Federal programme...perhaps provincial but I think it should be closer to home, municiple but with dollars coming from above. Municiple becaue as the article says, need is perceived differntly across Canada, less in rural areas, more in Metropolitain.

When you need "dollars coming from above" it becomes a subsidy. Sure, it may not be a direct subsidy to parents, but it is an indirect one neverthe less. Are parents willing to bear the full-freight of creating new spaces, so that it is not a cost burden on the government?

The stats you provided were for a ten year period, I'm speaking of a 40 year period. I don't have the Cnadian stats at hand, I will attempt to find them.

Here are some others.

Disposable personal income to personal income 1960-88.1 1980-86.2 1997-85.4

http://www.comw.org/poc/9904.html

Even using the stats you provided, look at the table which is titled "Ratios to Personal Outlays - percent".

In 1960 the % outlayed on housing was 14.2% and for household operations 6.0%, for a total of 20.2%

In 1997 the % outlayed on housing was 14.6% and for household operations 5.8%, for a total of 20.4%

Hardly much of a difference, wouldn't you agree?

Many things went down, food from 24.3% in 1960, to 13.8% in 1997, Non-durable goods from 45.0% in 1960 to 28.2% in 1997.

The only thing that went up in a meaningfull way was medical care and services. Medical care is not an issue here in Canada as it is provided uniformly to all residents

[M.Dancer]

Slowly backing away from disposable income claim...unable to find data

[Charles Anthony]

What the gov't should be doing is creating new spaces.

That makes even less sense.

Why not let the government govern and let the babysitters babysit???

Surely to goodness, the current daycare entrepreneurs can create daycares better than a bunch of bureaucrats. If not, we should all give up and submit ourselves to the almighty State for all of our needs! Help!!!!

[M.Dancer]

Are parents willing to bear the full-freight of creating new spaces, so that it is not a cost burden on the government?

I would be suprised if it were possible outside of old order mennoite communities and unrepenatnt mormons......

I see creating daycares the same way as creating schools.....it may take a village to raise a child .....<ducks> but it is a worthwhile investment.

[M.Dancer]

What the gov't should be doing is creating new spaces.

That makes even less sense.

Why not let the government govern and let the babysitters babysit???

Surely to goodness, the current daycare entrepreneurs can create daycares better than a bunch of bureaucrats. If not, we should all give up and submit ourselves to the almighty State for all of our needs! Help!!!!

You mean the rat traps and fire hazards that are called unlicensed? the ones with the 1 to 12 ratios?

I ain't and to my knowledge is anyone else saying the gov't should run the daycare any more than the gov't run a school.....I want them to help build.....and I ain't saying I want MPs weilding hammers...although that would be interesting

[Charles Anthony]

You mean the rat traps and fire hazards that are called unlicensed? the ones with the 1 to 12 ratios?

Would you deny me the right to send my child to the daycare of my choice???

I see creating daycares the same way as creating schools.....it may take a village to raise a child .....<ducks> but it is a worthwhile investment.

It is not a worthwhile investment if <You had better duck!> you go bankrupt <CRASH!!!> before the fruits of your investment are realized.

Even if it was worthwhile and inexpensive, I see daycares in the same way as amusement parks. If you want to go, pay the fare.

[M.Dancer]

You mean the rat traps and fire hazards that are called unlicensed? the ones with the 1 to 12 ratios?

Would you deny me the right to send my child to the daycare of my choice???

I would deny you your right to endanger you child...willingly, although not gladly

I see creating daycares the same way as creating schools.....it may take a village to raise a child .....<ducks> but it is a worthwhile investment.

It is not a worthwhile investment if <You had better duck!> you go bankrupt <CRASH!!!> before the fruits of your investment are realized.

Many of the best daycares in TO are operated by the anglican parishes..as not for profit. They don't go bankrupt.

Even if it was worthwhile and inexpensive, I see daycares in the same way as amusement parks. If you want to go, pay the fare.

Daycares are not amusement parks

[Renegade]

You may have seen that MC accepts municiple subsidies....all licensed daycares do. A subsidized daycare recieves direct fundingand their operating costs are underwritten.

No, I mean a direct fee subsidy.

Subsidized child care, also known as fee subsidy, can assist you in meeting the cost of child care for your children between the ages of 0 to 9 years. You must be the child's parent, foster parent or legal guardian and your child must live with you.

Fee subsidy is available on a first-come, first-served basis, so plan to apply well in advance of when you need it as there is a waiting list. If you are pregnant or in the process of adopting, you should apply now and get on the waiting list. Be aware that if you do start your child in a child care program before fee subsidy is approved, you will pay the full cost of child care.

link

http://www.gracechurchonthehill.ca/childCareCentre.html

This is where my daughter went 7 years ago. It is in Forest Hill. It is consoidered one of the finest daycares in TO...a sort of pre scholol bishop strachan.....and if you qualify, you can get a subsidy.

To get a sub, you must earn less than 30K HHI, and have less than $1000 in capital assets.........

My point is if there is a subsidy available, more people would apply then if market prices dictated available spaces.

So let's be clear in that what parents are asking the government to do, is not just create availiable childcare spaces, it is asking the government to do is create more subsidized childcare spaces. Which of course brings us to the question I originally asked of why it is the responsibilty of the rest of society to subsidize parental choices.

[M.Dancer]

You may have seen that MC accepts municiple subsidies....all licensed daycares do. A subsidized daycare recieves direct fundingand their operating costs are underwritten.

No, I mean a direct fee subsidy.

Subsidized child care, also known as fee subsidy, can assist you in meeting the cost of child care for your children between the ages of 0 to 9 years. You must be the child's parent, foster parent or legal guardian and your child must live with you.

Fee subsidy is available on a first-come, first-served basis, so plan to apply well in advance of when you need it as there is a waiting list. If you are pregnant or in the process of adopting, you should apply now and get on the waiting list. Be aware that if you do start your child in a child care program before fee subsidy is approved, you will pay the full cost of child care.

link

That's what I said...anyone who sends their children to a licensed daycare and is elegible can get a subsidy....that is different for a municiply subsidzed daycare....where anyone who gets in gets subsidized rates whether the need it or not.

Am I clear? Mothercraft is not a subsidized daycare...I can not get a subsidy, I do not qualify....but if I go to a municiple centre, I get much lower rates? Clear?

[M.Dancer]

My point is if there is a subsidy available, more people would apply then if market prices dictated available spaces.

So let's be clear in that what parents are asking the government to do, is not just create availiable childcare spaces, it is asking the government to do is create more subsidized childcare spaces. Which of course brings us to the question I originally asked of why it is the responsibilty of the rest of society to subsidize parental choices.

Places like Mothercraft and Grace Church do not have subsidy spaces...there is no quota or anything. First come forst serve and if the rate is funded, ity has no bearing...the centre still gets 1200 a month.

So let's be clear in that what parents are asking the government to do, is not just create availiable childcare spaces, it is asking the government to do is create more subsidized childcare spaces

Thanks for clearing up what it is I'm asking for..... even if it ain't. So lets be clar about that eh?

[Renegade]

I see creating daycares the same way as creating schools.....it may take a village to raise a child .....<ducks> but it is a worthwhile investment.

So now you are hositing the burden of raising the child on the "village". The "village" wasn't really given a voice or a choice in signin up for this so I don't see why it should bear the cost.

As far as it is a worthtwhile investment, how so? Will the child be more productive and pay more taxes to society because the state has paid for childcare? Show me the link. Otherwise it just seems like an execuse for parents to transfer their cost responsibilties to the state.

[M.Dancer]

I see creating daycares the same way as creating schools.....it may take a village to raise a child .....<ducks> but it is a worthwhile investment.

So now you are hositing the burden of raising the child on the "village". The "village" wasn't really given a voice or a choice in signin up for this so I don't see why it should bear the cost.

As far as it is a worthtwhile investment, how so? Will the child be more productive and pay more taxes to society because the state has paid for childcare? Show me the link. Otherwise it just seems like an execuse for parents to transfer their cost responsibilties to the state.

Welcome to 21st century...I hope you enjoy your stay....perhaps while your here you might read some news...

http://www.hbns.org/news/benefits02-07-04.cfm

http://www.nccic.org/poptopics/effectsqualitycc.html

There have been studies after studies that show children in ECE programmes are better socialized, have fewer problems at school and do better than their peers who haven't had the benefit of ECE. What you have just questioned is like asking what are the benefits of kindregarten, grade 1,2 and 3.......

[Renegade]

Places like Mothercraft and Grace Church do not have subsidy spaces...there is no quota or anything. First come forst serve and if the rate is funded, ity has no bearing...the centre still gets 1200 a month.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. So maybe you can impart some of your wisdom, if Mothercraft and Grace are full and have waitlist, why are they not expanding as would any other business.

Thanks for clearing up what it is I'm asking for..... even if it ain't. So lets be clar about that eh?

So what it is you are asking for? You've said that you don't want subisides to parents. You've said you don't want the government to create subsidized childcare spaces.

If you are asking for the government to build childcare buildings and such infrastructure, are you expecting that they will recoup the cost from the operators. If not, isn't that exactly subsidized childcare spaces?

[Riverwind]

if Mothercraft and Grace are full and have waitlist, why are they not expanding as would any other business.

Childcare is a not like 'any other business'. The gov't regulations require significant capital investment in order to expand capacity and the centers cannot charge enough to recover that investment. As a result, most daycares operate as non-profits organizations using facilities that have been paid for by gov't or charity. That is also one of the reasons why there are so many 'unregulated' daycare spaces - the cost of upgrading a typical personal residence to meet gov't regulations is huge compared to the expected revenue stream.

[Renegade]

There have been studies after studies that show children in ECE programmes are better socialized, have fewer problems at school and do better than their peers who haven't had the benefit of ECE. What you have just questioned is like asking what are the benefits of kindregarten, grade 1,2 and 3.......

No, no. That's how it benefits you the parent and your kid. Since you've asked me and the rest of society to consider it an "investment" I expect a return. You may get value from the fact that the kid behaves better, or does better than their peers, but what is the net value to those of us being asked to fund the "investment"

BTW, I can lay on the sarcasim as well as you, so if you want to avoid a pissing contest, tread a bit lighter here.